I see a great problem here, with wikipedia editors not allowed full use of internet images, yet say on Pinterest, in fact any number of web sites, i can post any number of images of a person. Biography images should include at least one 'flattering' image of a person, we strongly feel (no matter how loved or hated the person) that should be a rule of thumb as common courtosie to the human animal in question. As well a few semblances of naturalistic images for realistic biography purposes would hopefully be included, in varying repose, and not all states of repose necessarily 'flattering' to the common eye, for any significant personage. It seems that lawsuits against Wikipedia Corporation may be in order for any biography page that has only an unflattering image uploaded, as the site has become the de-facto international encyclopedia, a weighty position to hold that of such power, with heavy responsibility entailed. (yes, i shudder too, it is unseemingly like we're in the first few chapters of Aasimov's Foundation series, with some 'grand encyclopedia' project for the civilization, and then you think, wow all those battles that soon happen, and yes Aasimov like most sci-fi writers tends to 'gloss over' the supreme suffering and misery that must entailed in the flipside to all those 'exciting space battles', yet, on the other hand, it may be he tended to just rewrite the History of the British Empire in that series, and quasi-project it into the future, perhaps its not prophecy, but commentary)
Lawsuits? Unfair?? Well i can make a healthy educated guess that Wikipedia's current position was after bludgeoning by threats, lawsuits, and bullying, as it used to be you could in fact paste on any photo you wanted without troubles. So perhaps some well-directed lawsuits from a few powerful folks with nifty lawyers at their disposal can put pressures on this issue from a different direction. Until this troublesome issue is resolved, allowing greater use for wikipedia editors of internet images, wikipedia must be considered as sub-standard in all senses, either it discontinues all images as of sub-standard quality-of-selection for what is the main international encyclopedia, or all these folks that hold rights to images need to give way (of which they are a dime a million photos nowadays we click with our billions of camera buttons, photos that 'Sony' or 'Panasonic' engineers, & their line-workers, and their peers from other such Companys, did all the most of the work, really, to make those photos!) Now, photographers have rights and need food, gas, shelter, art-entertainment-&culture... and Mondelez chocolates perhaps from time to time, yet there must be some new remedy so that this international-encyclopedia-project, perhaps a few other internet sites as well, barring some type of 'wikipedia-exclusivity', have greater & easier access to images without being hassled so much, and its noted that Wikipedia is just one of 1000s of locations, internet & otherwise, that photographers & photo-holding-companys can make their deserved income. There is a possibility of a link to the photographer and/or company holding the image rights, so they have some advertising or credit, as say on Pinterest, which can promote the photographers and companys involved merely by showcasing the images, even link from Pinterest to their own pages & sites, however, there is potential problems with that for a site like Wikipedia, that really isnt supposed to be at all about advertising or promotions, art, business, & entertainment, but instead is concerned purely with information, facts, and the closest approximations to truth that can be managed with limited time, resources, & talent, and that can be managed within the ideological, political, & intellectual expediency & wrangling & disagreement that wrests itself into such a project as 'the main international encyclopedia'.
Then there is the issue that the Companys making the cameras may soon wish & in fact demand, that the device upon which any photo was taken be credited in any internet posting at all anywhere, we could then see some of the sub-manufacturers demanding credit too, then perhaps the Mining-Companys that dug out some of those materials for the parts need some credit too, what do yu think of that photographers & photo-holding companys??! As there is copyright, an important concept, so people in certain types of commerce & occupation can eat too, but what about manufacturers' rights? What about listing all the people on the Panasonic-Line that took part in making yur specific individual camera?? Lets take up more cyberspace & internet speed to give credit where it is due?! There is also the possibility that all wealthy and connected folks, especially from the 1st world and/or wealthy countrys hire personal photographers specially to upload a great deal of pleasant & flattering photos, in varying repose... to 'wikimedia commons'... and other such locations. Or, an expirations-policy may work best: that is, once a photo is uploaded onto the internet anywhere, its automatic copyright expires after 1 year from that day & they become public property, for some small process and fee perhaps 2 years can be guaranteed. For older photos, some arbitrary date say pre1950s, photos which can often be from more of an investor's category that have had to be held and stored and upkept, or say photos more than 50 years old rather than some specific era's dates, a 5 year term is automatically secured, and for that minimal process a 10year-rights can be held from once the photo is first displayed on the internet?
For 'biography' photos an additional issue comes up, as with any photos of persons: which is that a person may in fact be automatically entitled to a small percentage of the financial recompense that any such photos of their recorded image brings in, directly or indirectly, no matter the photo was taken in private or public spaces! Such rights could be waived, or never attempted to collect upon (as say many celebritys and such have a mutually beneficial relationship with photographers & indeed do already get indirect benefits from many of the photos, altho, sometimes certain photos do them financial damage. As well we must acknowledge a certain cadre of photographers that take images of people outside the 'celebrity-art-business-entertainment-realm' and whose photos do such people indirect benefit, say exposing unfair or substandard situations or conditions with their photos, or perhaps drawing attention to a looming disease issue or potential catastrophe of some sort, and as well we have another cadre of photographers that are more purely documentary/historical in style, with no agenda really pro or con, and who dont really make significant income from the photos enough to provide recompense to the subjects) yet, anyways, there may in fact be automatic financial rights of some kind for persons that have their images recorded & displayed, including images taken from public spaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.43.46 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}